DEVENDRA RAGHURAJ DESHPRABHU Vs. RAJENDRA VASSUDEO DESHPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr Pangam for the Appellants and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents at some length. I am not persuaded that any substantial questions of law arise justifying the admission of the second appeal. For the rest of this discussion, I will refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

(2.) A few facts will be necessary. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.440/2000/C-B(new)/Special Civil Suit No.82/1990/A-B(old). This was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji. The Respondents sought a decree of eviction and mesne profits against the Appellants. The premises in question were described in the plaint thus:

(3.) The Defendants took several pleas including, interestingly, a plea of adverse possession and, simultaneously, that they enjoyed something called a "permanent licence". The Defendants claimed the land in question was purchased by the original Plaintiffs' father and the Appellants' grandfather one Vassudeo Deshprabhu. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are first cousins. The Defendants' father was, they claimed, in exclusive possession of these premises from 1961 onwards.